The Right Response to the Obama/Blago Connection

John McCain is back to his old mavericky ways, throwing the RNC under the bus for playing up Obama's Blagojevich ties. 

Without agreeing too much with Senator McCain, it's fair to say that any residual connections Obama may have with Gov. Blagojevich as a result of being an Illinois Senator are not the strongest part of our argument. I can understand the desire to go at Obama. But with Obama at 76% approval for the transition, our hits against him have to be clean hits, or they will blow up in our face. I find myself agreeing with Phil Singer that any attacks have to conform to existing public narratives of Obama. I don't think that Obama the corruptocrat is a particularly promising meme, but I do think that Obama as lethargic and passive (which was Obama's whole strength during the economic crisis because of McCain's erratic-ness) could have potential if, say, it was found that Obama's staff knew something shady was going on, and did not immediately report it to Patrick Fitzgerald.

Meanwhile, the GOP should be focused on the following:

  1. Play the Special Election to the Hilt. Dick Durbin opened a door that Mark Kirk or Peter Roskam may well walk through. At a minimum, the DNC will be forced to spend  millions of dollars defending a hugely symbolic Senate seat in the middle of Obama's first 100 days. The desire for a clean break from the political establishment, which is probably even more noxious than it was in the Jindal/Cao victories in Louisiana, is a huge wildcard that leaves the door open for a clean Republican. Jesse Jackson, Jr. is probably toast at this point; Jan Schakowsky is a shrill liberal and not a good fit statewide; I don't have a read on how Lisa Madigan's antics are playing in-state but have a feeling that the Madigan family's good cop-bad cop routine on the special could hurt.
     
  2. Tell a Story About Democratic Corruption. Let's use this opportunity to lay the groundwork for a narrative about the Democrats as a party. And let's not hesitate to separate Obama from Congressional Democrats, as this commenter suggested. This has long-term utility to the extent we can infuse the Obama-Congressional relationship with distrust and jealousy so they're at war with each other. Blagojevich, Jefferson, Rangel, and Dodd should be painted as part of a pattern. It took years of Republicans being in power for the Abramoff stuff to happen. These guys aren't even in yet, and just look.
     
  3. Keep Up Calls for Transparency and Openness from the Obama Team. Adopt Soren's transparency agenda and hold Obama's feet to the fire on disclosing everything -- in a "trust but verify" kind of way. We need to find ways to turn Democratic screw ups into positive Republican alternatives that rebuild our trust with voters. While I think there has to be a nod to the reality that Obama was not directly involved in any of Blago's dealings, we need to be ready to call out any slippage or dissembling in the disclosure timeline. The transition has laudably posted documents from its meetings with outside interest groups. Will it do the same for its internal deliberations and its contacts with Blago and other prospective supplicants?

 

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Comments

You're one of the worst, Ruffini

So eager to put the cart before the horse,

But with Obama at 76% approval for the transition, our hits against him have to be clean hits, or they will blow up in our face. I find myself agreeing with Phil Singer that any attacks have to conform to existing public narratives of Obama.

you openly and unapologetically embrace the idea of "memes" and "narratives", with little respect to any facts.

 

Meet The Next Right, same as The Old Right.

 

Going to have to disagree with you there

You don't really make much of a point here.  Patrick's right in that, strategically, we have to play this with coolness and caution. I think he makes it clear that this isn't the silly caution of John McCain, but it is a level-headedness that can make Republicans look credible in the attacks.

As conservatives talking among ourselves, we can acknowledge that all of this Blagojevich stuff is shady and pretty damning for Obama, but it's to our advantage to be consistent in our message. Until the smoking gun arises (which it may not), this means decrying the corruption that we know to exist and otherwise pointing out that which is obvious.

Dodd's connection to Countrywide is a perfect example. Republicans totally lost the argument over the sub-prime mortgage debacle by failing to point out the obvious connections congressional Democrats had to failing GSEs, corporations, and policies that expediated the crisis. At the same time, we should restrain from the derangement syndrome that plagues Bush.

Obama isn't a conniving, calculating mob-style politician; he gives a weak-willed pass to atrocious acts of those associated with him (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Blagojevich). THIS is a message that would be both effective and have the anecdotal evidence to back up. It's a winning strategy that doesn't capitulate to a narrative; it points out the obvious.

Statesmanship degenerates into partisanship when mercantilists..

...gain ascendancy in the body politic, according to Plato.

That is, such partisanship is an admission of a lack of statesmanship.

Sometimes the best thing to do is to wait and do nothing. 

The stuff Republicans threw

The stuff Republicans threw at Democrats didn't stick because there was no glue.  Obama is not tied to Blagojevich.  They hardly speak, depsite being the highest elected officials from their state.  Blago is on tape cursing Obama for not offering a bribe.  Even Republican memes need a little meat between those big buns (apologies for swithcing metaphores).

Republicans will not win on negativity alone.  They are not ahead in the clean politician category. 

"hardly speaks" ain't good enough

Obama endorsed Blago for re-election in 2006

The Democrat AG, Lisa Madigan, didn't

If we had to elect a Chicago Democrat President, she might be ahead on my list.

The point is that Obama has never stood up to sleaze in his career.  Sarah Palin ran an ethically dubious governor out of office. Barack Obama didn't--he waited until he jumped the rails to bail out on the guy.

And yet the public could hardly care less

New Gallup poll out today says only 1 in 4 Americans think the Obama team did something wrong in the Blago affair. Maybe if the Republican leadership hadn't stayed mute when Bush and Cheney were trying to declare the White House visitor logs classified information in order to hide Abramoff's multiple visits they would have more luck now in getting people to take them seriously when they say this is a matter worth looking into. Chicken. Home. Roost.

In a 15 round fight

usually the other boxer shrugs off the body blows in Round one.

Bill Clinton is sooo glad Mario Cuomo had the same attitude about Bush 41's 91% job approval in 1991.

BTW, who is Jack Abramoff? Last time I checked Tom DeLay hadn;t been running Congress since there was a real estate boom.

How do you propose to expand the Blago affair to 15 rounds

Especially given that the most memorable thing that has come out so far is Blago saying that Obama is an MF for refusing to play ball?

Your analogy is  just not apt.

You think this is the only time he'll get in the soup?

well, there's an optimist born every minute.

Once a hack politician from Chicago, always a hack politician from Chicago

You think the Clinton and McCain oppo research teams

missed loads of dubious dealings? Or found them but decided not to mention them??

Yes

We aren't talking campaigns run by the likes of Rove, Atwater or Carville. The Mac team in particular talked itself out of many promising lines of attack.  Well, Mr. bipartisan compromise is no longer the lead man on the bridge.

 

there's a real reason why cards weren't played

it's called the cards the other side has. you don't play the "your religion spreads hate" card when the opponent has the "Your religion offends most voters" card.

There's a reason rev. wright was off limits, while that disgraceful sex ed ad went to press.

Obama ran the most racist ad of the campaign

with those immigration commericals smearing McCain as a racist; Big Mac has done more for immigration reform than Obama has in his lifetime.  Most conservatives hated him for that but him and even Palin showed some guts by coming out strongly for Hispanics on that issue.  Only Jake Tapper in the media had the guts to call out Obama for his playing the race card with his Spanish commercials (right after his "dollar bills" comment, the most vile statement made in the course of this campaign).

The Rezko land deal was the sleaziest dealing I've heard of from a national politician in quite some time; just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean it's right.  That land deal tells me all I need to know about Obama's ability to see no evil.  It's completely unexplainable how he could engage in such a transaction with a guy that everyone else knew was crooked but him.  Why not try defending Obama on the land deal?

You don't find it sleazy that Michelle Obama got a raise right after Obama gave the hospital an earmark?  Even Durbin admitted that he should have been the one to submit the earmark.  How about all the constituents in his district when he was a state senator who are living in slums and freezing their asses off becuase of he awarded housing projects to Valerie Jarrett and Tony Rezko.  Did you choose to ignore the article that came out about it in the Boston newspaper?  I guess Obama's judgment in letting Jarrett and Rezko put people in slums was Bush's fault as well.

None of this got any traction during the campaign.

So why should it now?

Buyer's remorse

Rahm Emanuel wasn't on the ballot. Now we find he's on Fitzy's wiretaps 21 times. Hmmmm.

palin is ethically dubious silly

all alaskan politicians are.

Obama helped get Coburn's legislation on transparency passed. Which is more good than I can say about a vindictive stalker of a governor.

How did Blago know, if no contact was made by him to Obama?

<<Blago is on tape cursing Obama for not offering a bribe.>>

Uhhhh, sorry for applying boolean logic here but.....How would one know that obama is not offering a bribe (or political favors more appropriately) if no contact was ever made?

P.S., I'm nuking up some popcorn in eager anticipation of a "Chief Of Staff" Perp Walk. 

correct

if you ignore Dodd and Rangel just to go after Obama, when it is pretty clear (as of now) that he did nothing wrong, you risk looking like the "opposition" party...attacking Obama only because he is the Democrat that beat you in an election, not because he did anything wrong.

Blago is on tape cursing him, Fitzgerald told Obama to hold off on releasing the contacts...there is nothing there. And whatever is there, you will find out about as soon as Fitzgerald gives Obama the OK. Right now the far right looks like they have for the past year- desperate to tear down Obama and not really concerned with anything else.

Because being a college professor is SUCH deviltry!

Oh, ye ivory towered temptresses, luring good republican children away with your luscious wiles!

Because calling for prison ministries and AIDS ministries is such a bad thing... (seriously, Rev. Wright is an egotistical minister, but other than that... pretty much a solidly good guy. Try listening to his entire sermon, for some of those quotes)

How, exactly?

Much like Ruffini, you give little regard to actual facts.

Obama isn't a conniving, calculating mob-style politician; he gives a weak-willed pass to atrocious acts of those associated with him (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Blagojevich). THIS is a message that would be both effective and have the anecdotal evidence to back up. It's a winning strategy that doesn't capitulate to a narrative; it points out the obvious.

A "weak-willed pass" to Blagojevich?!?

In what world does Obama have any control over any action of the Governor of Illinois?  So in what world can Obama give a "weak-willed pass"?

Clarification

What I was saying is that Obama does not really stand up for or against anything. As the most visible Illinois politician, Obama was weak in approaching an issue that at least tangentially involved him. This is a pattern; he sort of lets things slide, tosses a few folks under the proverbial bus, and emerges relatively unscathed. We should point out that he is unwilling to come out and say "this is wrong" when it behooves him to do so.

Sorry for not throwing enough facts at you, the Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers situations are just some good anecdotal evidence.

For one

Didn't he come out on day two of the scandal? I find that relatively early.

Two, I'm glad we have a president who isn't willing to jump to conclusions immediately.

There may be a few points on which you are right

But the thought behind what you are saying is just misguided. Where Obama might be more measured and more deliberate in taking actions, this is quite hard to mistake for lethargy or some sort of agreement with actions and ideologies he has denounced over and over again (see: Wright, Ayers, Blagojevich).

When someone has a relationship with another person, and they interact at such a level that "atrocious acts" are in no way a part of what they discuss or do together then that is not "giving a pass" it is instead an example of what we all do every day. We all have associates whom we disagree with, yet spend time together and maybe even develope close relationships (I have an openly racist cousin who I have yet to disown). Now, there are obviously some ideas, or actions, or types of people who there is no excuse for associating with, II'm sure many would argue Ayers is just such a man, but at the time of Obama's meeting him I don't believe there was a sign hanging off of him sayinjg "I bombed America!" and it would be ridiculous to insist that people vet every human being they interact with.

My point in saying all of this is that: yes, Republicans DO look stupid when they try to pin Obama to Ayers, or Blagojevich, or any number of 6 degrees of seperation style attacks. People, as of this cycle, are fed up with that sort of nonsense and Republicans have, frankly, shouted themselves horse with crying wolf at every Democrat that steps up to the plate. There is a smart way to be critical of people (even someone whose popularity is as high as Obamas) where you can score points and influence opinions, but it is not by shrieking and jumping on every inaccuracy or percieved injustice.

For an example, lets look at how incensed many got when Palin was under intense scrutiny from the media and how that hardened their attitudes towards her critics. The same can be said of an even larger number of the public who now consider Obama "their guy" (albeit to varying degrees). You can't scream bloody murder at him, especially when there are numerous ways of determing that he seems to be in no way connected, because you will just be tuned out and lose credibility when any real faults emerge.

I also agree that this post, and to a growing degree the site itself, is not about helping the nation move forward, it has become about forwarding Republican interests at the expense of everyone else's (including right leaning independents like myself). I haven't seen many posts here about crafting smart policy that can be used to re-establish the credibility that the Republican brand has lost. The closest has been the transparency stuff, but I feel that the motivation for calling for it is such that the writers are blind to how that will expose and handicap a Republican agenda equally well. I don't enjoy reading blatent hypocracy, if standards are being established then I believe all the players should abide by them or else it is plain silly to claim superiority.  But, if there were a concern for establishing a playing field where it is more likely that not just stalwart Republicans but the nation as a whole is going to benefit, then we can have room for opposition that does not operate as if politics had to be a zero sum game.

we are confronting a fact-free opposition

Really, what in Barack Obama's tissue thin resume suggests he is able to resolve an economic crisis. That he could raise megabucks exploiting disgust with Bush? That he avoided indictment following election to public office in Cook County?

I'm waiting for all those town hall meetings with McCain.  The president-elect slid into office offering precious little of substance, and it is the moral obligation of a loyal opposition to demand that once elected, he start providing it. 

well, I don't know about you, but I like his coalition.

maybe you ought to get familiar with Democratic coalition politics before you start assigning Republican autocratic memes to them. ;-)

Coalitions are simple to assemble

when you are running against an incumbent with a 25% approval rating. (nice job tying Mac to Dubya, BTW)

Let's see how many of these people stay on the bandwagon once Bush is in the rear view.

Did you like the McCain girls?

FWIW, I think we did a better job of making McCain into the old-fogey candidate than tying him to Dubya. He soiled his own image, but I don't think that really got him more than turned into 'generic republican'

And you are of course right, it is very easy to make a coalition when you run against a Kleptocracy. The Republicans are currently controlled by the religious right (new development) -- the Democrats? By the professionals, a traditional Republican constituency. I'd say they've got a good shot of staying in power for a while, until the Republicans get thirsty enough for victory to find issues and ideas that fit the new century.

Hear, hear

Shameless.  The same folks who nattered about "supporting our president" as a matter of principle, in the face of an 8-year series of catastrophic executive decisions, are now already plotting their "hits" against Obama.  The smallness of Ruffini's thinking is pitiful.  If Ruffini has any say in it, the Right will give up any legitimate claims to patriotism and putting the country first, and simply engage in the same old parochial, party-first politics of destruction.   It's not enough to say that you're only doing what the Democrats did.  It was wrong when the Democrats did it, and it'll not only be wrong, but harmful to the country, if the Republicans don't offer solutions to the country's problems, instead of the same mudslinging they peddled during the '08 campaign.

Did you criticize the Dems for doing it...

I'm betting no, so shut up now. Kos and MoveOn made the bed then that Obama gets to sleep in now; that's politics, get over it. You wouldn't make a progressive give up his/her attacks when Bush was trying to wage a war so don't expect more consideration from the right now. Oh, and when a Republican congressman calls Obama a "liar" a "dictator" or goes to visit a foreign leader he's going to declare war on in three days, then maybe this pathetic "Republicans don't care about the country" schtick will actually have a shread of credibility. Saying that we should hit Democratic congressman for (legitimately bad) corruption and attempt to show that the Democrats (legitimately do) run the risk of being more crooked than the DeLay Republicans is a far cry from "General Betray us" or the average bile-filled rantings of Daily Kos diarists. You can deal. Oh, and read up on the election of 1800, then tell me how much Jefferson's and Adams' vicious attacks on each other show their lack of patriotism for the country they helped found (though, incidentally, I don't think either of them actually took out adds in major newspapers accusing a serving general of treason; MoveOn wins that round).

I for one think that Moveon's shtick was just as outrageous

as beating up on John Kerry for HIS military service. Both reprehensible.

Petreaus may be a bootlicking ambitious son of a bitch ... as CENTCOM commander called him (I'm approximating not quoting). But the selection process by which only the verbally inclined, as opposed to the strategically oriented, is nothing new to CiC Bush. To whine about that is not to provide a good solution (incidentally, our military DOES have a nice solution to it).

The comments about Bush being a dictator were done in a context of Executive Overreach. If Obama does not voluntarily cede those back to the Legislature, then the Legislature would certainly have the right to call him just as much of a dictator as George W Bush. Likewise, if he overreaches further... they have more of a right.

The idea that names cannot be used accurately, or hyperbolically with reference to certain programs, kinda irritates me.

Most kos diarists aren't that crazy, truly. They certainly are less outrageous than WTH here, at least to my sensibilities.
 

Jefferson and Adams wrote their own papers, that they widely distributed. In many ways, to a wider distribution than saw the NewYorkTimes.

Yes, politics is dirty. And nobody would say that McCain's campaign was the dirtiest ever. But it certainly was in the past few years.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt...

And assume that you don't know much about the military. Petraeus actually has a lot of respect in military circles--much of it coming from people who wouldn't give Bush the time of day. I'm not sure which CentCom commander you're talking about, but highly unprofessional comments like that can get you fired.

As for Kerry; I thought questioning his purple hearts was over the line, but his absurd and dangerous insults directed at serving soldiers while he was involved with VVAW were fair game. And before you bring up the Max Cleland nonsense, I'd say it was on the edge. I think the attack on Cleland's vote was legitimate but the BinLaden stuff was over the line.

Executive over-reach? C'mon RT, Adams? Jackson? Lincoln? FDR? Beside these giants of American history, GWB was a piker:

John Adams: alien and sedition acts.

Andrew Jackson: imposed a gag rule on the congress forbidding the slavery issue from even being discussed.

Abraham Lincoln: not only suspended habeas corpus, but imposed martial law on one state (Maryland) and dissolved it's government.

FDR: interned the Japanese, attempted to arbitrarily change the number of Supreme Court justices, and all the abuses real and imputed commited by J. Edgar Hoover happened on FDR's watch.

 

Now, I'm not saying all of these were unjustified, just that, in historical perspective, the "over-reach" of the Patriot Act and Bush wanting to keep congress and the press from looking at his records is small potatoes. But I'm glad to see that you'll treat Obama's near certain rigorous defense of executive privelege as harshly as you did Bush's. Skeptical that it'll happen, but glad to hear it.

If you're implying that Bush's programs resembled Hitler's...again, c'mon, be serious. Hitler was much more of a stateist and economic nationalist. I think Bush was too much of a big-government guy, particularly on non-defense issues, but hitler? And that's not even getting into the really really dark parts of the Third Reich which Bush conspicuously failed to emulate.

Abhorrent

This has long-term utility to the extent we can infuse the Obama-Congressional relationship with distrust and jealousy so they're at war with each other.

I'm sorry, at what point do you start giving a damn about the country?

 

You're missing the point here.

This is a forum solely designed to get Republicans elected.  Strategery for getting the Democrats in checkmate in X moves.

If you're looking for ideas, not so much.  If you're looking for ideas about conservatism, ideas about smaller, less intrusive government, ideas promoting liberty... I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere.

 

Cheers.

Yes, but as another

Yes, but as another right-leaning independent, for the last few years I've been wondering WHY Republicans think we should elect them?  A glaring lack of ideas leaves everyone but die-hard, win-at-all costs party faithful (27% of the population?) guessing at WHY Republicans think they should be elected -- and painfully so in 2008, when we were left to assume little-to-no substantive disagreement on Republicans' part with the Bush agenda, given that none seemed inclined to criticize them and certainly McCain never gave voice to any.  Aside from the end-goal of getting elected, what do Republicans want to do for our country?  How can 'getting elected' be completely unrelated to the policies and governance you would pursue?  Aren't there any Republicans who want to 'get elected' for a reason they'll own up to publicly? 

My starting point is that

My starting point is that modern Democrats are ideologically unfit to run a small-town garbage collection agency, never mind the federal government. Ergo, fracturing the Obama-Congressional relationship and otherwise doing everything that the law permits to destroy Obama's presidency is giving a damn about the country.

The Right response?

I thought the Right response to everything was, "So what?"

Nice Post, Patrick

Im a resident of Illinois and have been following this closely. My friends from other states and I have had many discussions on this topic and your article is a good summary of my thoughts since the beginning.  I understand the desire to try and tie this to Obama, but I think in the end people will see there was much distance between the two for quite some time.  Yes, he endorsed him in 2006...but like many examples we have seen during the campaign, this endoresement was more of a toeing party lines endorsement and not a "This is my guy" endorsement.

I think the better way to attack the Blago scandal in regards to Obama are to just hammer the corruption in Illinois politics that Obama's candidacy has grown from and as you mention, note the passive/naivity of Obama in regards to a growing list of political "allies" that he didnt realize were hurtful for America.  I dont believe the special election will actually happen...but the RNC should continue to be forceful on this because the people of Illinois are paying attention to how their represenative seat gets solved.

Same old dirty tricks, eh?

Still the party of Nixon & Rove, I see.  As some of the other commenters have noted, you should really look for governing ideas and ideals, as you profess to do, rather than concocting and conducting smears and other dirty tricks with which you can win elections in letter, but not in spirit.  It's disheartening to look into the eyes of the competition and see a shallow reflection, but no soul whatsoever. 

Because... that's how the democrats won the last two elections?

Your boys showed the way: say "hope, change, unity, new direction"until your blue in the face while laying down zero content behind it, tie everything to the sitting President you don't like, rely on the fact that a majority of your voters actually believe the other party is still in control of congress, shamelessly attack a war in progress in a fashion not seen in this country since 1864, then demand that the other party, which has not even stooped to your level, be held to a ridiculous standard to which not a single elected official from your own--let alone your fever swamps--could adhere. This sounds like "new ideas" to me. The playbook of negativity was the way to win, as established by the democrats in 2006 and to some extent 2008.

I actually agree that the GOP needs good ideas and strategies, some of which have been discussed here, but I do take a certain satisfaction in the Progressive left's inability to take what they've been dishing for the past 8 years (and then some if you count their sneering of the GOP congress in the nineties). Politics is a rough game children, as your own pros know very well **cough, Ram Emanuel**.

plenty of content

see fivethirtyeight's nice long list. keynesian content, which plenty around here consider to be destructive, but still plenty of content.

wall street ate that shit right up, and came back for more.

"new ideas".

You're right; I should have narrowed my comments. The Democrats have content, but none of it is new; same old Kenesian solutions, as you point out, not even really dressed up much beyond the glammour of Obama. Of course, they won by hammering GOP scandals and constant unrelenting negativity toward Bush. Given this, I don't understand why the faux bipartisans on this thread are suddenly expecting the GOP not even to level legitimate criticisms.

probably because they don't consider them legitimate

GWB is regarded as the worst president ever. Greenspan is the Worst Fed Chair ever. But you care about one of these much more than you care about the other, and it beats the hell out of me why!

They both bother me...

Because they are both ridiculously hyperbolic statements with no historical basis. Yeesh, talk about paranoid style. I can't speak to fed chairman, but James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, US Grant, Franklin Pierce and almost certainly LBJ would all rank lower than Bush even if most of the charges the left makes are true.

mmmr. you and the progressive activists don't know half the shit

that's going down right now. which is a good thing. problem is, you can't stop it if you dont' know about it. so GLAD bush fired all the professionals, aren't you? Man, I miss the whistleblowers...

Historical basis? I was just citing the historians.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_preside...

LBJ is ranked consistently in the upper third of presidents (higher if you consult liberals, whereas conservatives want Ike in the top Ten, liberals want LBJ. I like 'em both, so don't ask me to decide!!). Harding is a mistake to rate as low, in my most humble opinionm -- his entire coalition lost power, and thus he was rendered powerless. It's not to say that having a powerless president is a GOOD thing, but it is to say that he had limited ability to do anything about, well, anything. (I'd retract that if I saw reason to believe that he was adept in wielding unpopularity, as GW has proven).

Pierce was a really bad president, but I wouldn't dare lump the others in with Bush.

as for greenspan:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P131155.asp

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3862/is_/ai_n9088914

http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_03/daughty062803.html

If you consulted economists, they'd be in an all out fightfight between Greenspan and Mr. Burns. I'm coming down on the side of Greenspan, as who else precipitated a Global Economic Collapse? (per Roubini).

When I'm being hyperbolic, I'll tell you (or at least allow you to call me on it). But these people were driving with all the lights out, with the brake lines cut, and they're still wondering why someone decided to shoot them when they tried to drive through a checkpoint on a secure military installation.

Fed Chairs

Say whatever you will about Greenspan's shortcomings, he still gave us 20 years of almost uninterrupted prosperity.  Arthur Burns and Benanke are tied for the worst Fed Chairs of all time.

Also, are you saying that Franklin Pierce was a better president than Bush?

I love how

You complain in the first paragraph, and then state "Politics is a rough game children" in the second.

What bothers me...

Is the basic hypocrisy whereby all the sudden partisan attacks become unacceptable now that the Democrats are in power. What I'm "complaining" about is the ludicrous double-standard you're imposing.

As I've said before; honest partisanship doesn't bother me; mass hypocrisy does.

Um, Nolte...

...what the hell are you talking about?  What color is the sky in your world?  Yikes, are you detached from reality.

Very poetic posts...

But they  don't actually say much.  I haven't said anything factually inaccurate, accused anyone of not having a soul or even questioned anyone's patriotism, simply pointed out the hypocrisy. Perhaps you've never read the Daily Kos or seen the "General Betray us" advert in the NY Times? Do you even know who Jim McDermott is, and can you even fathom why his actions were far more aggregious than Ruffini's strategies? Am I banging my head against the brick wall of your self-imposed ignorance and stupidity, since we're pretending at poetry today?

Note to self:

Don't bother replying to Nolte any longer.  Clearly a waste of time.